Zuffa and Dana White have responded to Mark Hunt’s Motion to Supplement his First Amended Complaint and request the court deny the motion. While the rule is liberal for parties to amend and supplement pleadings, Zuffa and White argue that Hunt’s supplementation of information here would be “futile.”

Hunt filed the motion so that it may include factual information related to his claim that he was unfairly taken off of UFC Fight Night 121. The UFC and White argue that there was no choice but to remove him from the card due to his op-ed piece claiming physical maladies suffered from years of fighting. “Faced with such concerning statements from a fighter about his neurological health, Zuffa had no choice but to pull Hunt from the upcoming fight card until it could assure itself, athletic commission regulators, and the public that Hunt was, in fact, medically fit to fight.”

Zuffa and the UFC claim that the new allegations from Hunt have nothing to add to his claims. Defendants, as you might expect, believe that the claims are defective and supplementing it with more facts would not add or bolster the claim.

Despite filing the lawsuit, the UFC brings up that Hunt has been paid “more than $1.5 million” for competing in two bouts. Thus, the inference that there is no correlation between the suit and being taken off of the scheduled bout. Specifically, it has nothing to add to the RICO claims. “Hunt’s new allegations about being wrongfully removed from UFC Fight Night 121 are not even premised on his underlying RICO allegations that Zuffa had engaged in a pattern and scheme to allow doping fighters to compete against clean fighters. They [the proposed supplemental facts] are, instead, premised on the entirely new theory that Zuffa retaliated against him for having filed the instant lawsuit.”

The UFC also argues that the Breach of Contract would not be impacted as the Promotional Agreement limits the type of damages that are recoverable. Even though Hunt claims $100,000 in damages for his training camp.

Brock Lesnar’s attorney has not filed an opposition or joined (meaning Lesnar can just add their name to the motion) this one. The opposition is artfully pled and poses very good arguments but its unlikely that the court will deny Hunt’s motion to supplement its First Amended Complaint. While there are cases that will support the argument for denying supplemental facts, the amending and supplementing of pleadings are liberal to ensure that the litigation of the case is complete. It also prevents unnecessary appeals. Moreover, the court knows that defendants will get another shot at dismissing the supplementation of information in the First Amended Complaint when it files its Motion to Dismiss (or at the summary judgment stage if it is not defeated initially). MMA Payout will keep you posted.